[council] FW: BC priority scores for Whois Study Summary
All, Attached are the initial priority scores for Whois studies from the Business Constituency. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:14 AM To: Liz Gasster Cc: Chuck Gomes; Avri Doria Subject: BC priority scores for Whois Study Summary Liz -- here are initial priority scores for the BC. Just let me know if you have any questions. --Steve On 12/15/08 12:57 PM, "Liz Gasster" <Liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The current matrix of WHOIS Constituency views has been uploaded to > the WHOIS discussion area of the GNSO Council workspace (including > numeric levels for the RyC constituency). You may find this at: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion > > Constituency representatives are urged to update the information > currently posted using a numeric weighting scale as agreed on the last call: > > Top = 5 > Medium high = 4 > Medium = 3 > Medium low = 2 > Low = 1 > No study = 0 > > Our next call is this Wednesday 17 December and call-in details will > be provided shortly. If you have any difficulty updating the wiki or > if you would prefer that we update, just send your information to me > and I will take care of it. > > Thanks, Liz > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:41 AM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Council GNSO; Steve DelBianco; Steven Metalitz; Eulgen, Lee J.; > Liz Gasster > Subject: RE: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary > > The attached file contains the RyC numberical priorties and > feasibility entries. I used 0 to 5, where a 0 is used for a study > that the RyC thought should not be pursued. In cases of combined > studies where the RyC had assigned different priorities to studies in > the combined group, I entered an approximate average (e.g., 4.5). I > also added the following to the > spreadsheet: 1) a new row to cover the study in Area 6 titled Met b; > 2) a new column to identify the type of study (i.e., formal study, > fact gathtering & analysis, or fact gathering only). > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] >> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:16 AM >> To: Gomes, Chuck >> Cc: Council GNSO; Steve DelBianco; Steven Metalitz; Eulgen, Lee J.; >> Liz Gasster >> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Whois Study Summary >> >> hi Chuck, >> >> I was working on how I was going to work with the other NCAs to >> figure out our collective viewpoint and went back to your original >> document where instead of using the words Top/Med/Low you used values >> from 5- [1,0] (not sure you allowed for 0). >> >> In terms of figuring out where the top priorities really are on a >> council wide basis, i think it would be good to go back to those >> values and then we could ado simple stats on them to see which really >> were the top priority items on a council wide basis. And by allowing >> a value of 0 for no-study we take into account the possible viewpoint >> of RC and NCUC and perhaps others on specific studies they feel are >> not worth doing. >> >> In terms of values it could be something like: >> >> Priority >> >> Top = 5 >> Medium high = 4 >> Medium = 3 >> Medium low = 2 >> Low = 1 >> No study = 0 >> >> >> and for Feasibility >> >> yes = 1 >> maybe/don't know = 0 >> no = -1 >> >> I also recommend that, for now, we unify the table without separating >> it for top/med/low and fill in numeric values for all of the >> constituencies, NCA, ALAC, and GAC if they are interested (though we >> can assume they give top marks to the studies they recommended). >> This will allow us to sort on the stats to get a better picture. >> >> I have attached a sample excel file (haven't put in the equations >> yet) that would capture it. With a 'little' bit of work, for some >> value of 'little', it could be turned into a form that the >> constituencies could just fill in the values for. >> Alternatively, each constituency could submit its values. >> >> This is just a suggestion, but I cannot think of a non numerical way >> to make sure that all of the constituencies valuations are all taken >> into account. I.e. how do we turn a bunch of low, med and highs into >> an average without using numbers? >> >> a. >> >> Attachment:
BC Whois Studies Priorities and Feasibilities 18 Dec 08.xls |